Justice Moore

Gold Member

I've been following with interest the story of the Alabama state Supreme Court chief justice who is currently under attack for his decision to place in the Alabama state judicial building a large stone replica of the tablets of the ten commandments.

I'm not as troubled about whether the ten commandments display constitutes an illegal government endorsement of religion (though I tend to think it does) as I am about the fact that a very senior jurist seems to think its just fine to use his official government office to publicly flout laws he personally disagrees with. Isn't he sworn to uphold the law?

Yeah, I read about this story the other day, and found it rather insightful that the responding judges affirm that Moore himself is using religion as a means with which to place his opinion about the law.

I personally don't find the Commandments offensive, nor do I care too much if they are within eyesight. It's just one rotunda. But if you'll allow me, I'll pull a Bill O'Reilly (though I think he'd hardly argue against publicized religion considering he works for an incredibly conservative-laden network) move and make the following "argument."

You know, if Moore can keep the commandments in his rotunda, it'll just be a matter of time before other conservatives start demanding that they get monuments too. In a country where people can't prioritize certain choices or lifestyles above others, it'll be everyone's right to public display. (Note: He used a slippery slope to argue against a polygamous marriage act, citing that gays will want to jump all over that bandwagon. Dumb fuck.)

I laughed at a bumper sticker that read, "The last time politics and religion got together, witches were burned at the stake."

If anything, it's more than fair to live in a society in which people are free to practice whatever religion they wish (within reason -- Satanic cults get no love, you know). It's something entirely different to make a public demonstration of one's faith, and if Moore wants to uphold his love for the Commandments, by all means should he attend to his weekly baptism in front of his own congregation. Not to use a lame excuse, but there's a time and a place for God, and the Constitution helps ensure that that time and place doesn't overstep its boundaries to infringe upon the decencies of the non-practicing. And besides, a court of law is just that -- a court of law, and not of law grossly enriched by Scripture.

I'm supportive of people who practice the Faith, but in letting Moore go unaccountable for his actions, again calls into question the right to protection under the separation of state from church.

The 10 Commandments are the basis of our law. huh? I do not think so. The Commandments are rules of conduct for a unicultural [if there is such a word], tribal society. They form one of the bases for two of the dominant religions in the west.

Only one remains in the law today, the prohibition on murder. BUT pagan Rome and Greece prohibited such acts. I think Hammarabi was the Babylonian king who promulgated a code of law...and started the ball rolling.

Hey, I am a WASP; but I find the public display in a state supreme court building offensive. Is Justice not blind? Does such a display imply that only Jews and Christians can find justice here?

Gold Member

Longhornjok: Yes, he IS sworn to uphold the law, and the law he took an oath to uphold is not "God's law". He's entitled to his beliefs and his passionate defense of same, but, once the state supreme court ruled against him (8-0), he should have released a statement saying something like, "I cannot in all good conscience accept the judgement of the supreme court. My opinion in this matter is based on my own deeply-held religious beliefs and, thus, cannot be swayed. Therefore, since I swore an oath to uphold the law, I regretfully must resign my position." He would then have been free to walk outside and join the protesters gathered outside the courthouse. Judges are asked to interpret the law every day in every courthouse in this country, but, when a higher court rules against them, they are not allowed to pick and choose which rulings they will follow and which ones they won't.

Gold Member

Gold Member

aj2181: [quote author=Longhornjok link=board=99;num=1061784639;start=0#4 date=08/27/03 at 20:28:04] Judges are asked to interpret the law every day in every courthouse in this country, but, when a higher court rules against them, they are not allowed to pick and choose which rulings they will follow and which ones they won't. [/quote]

Gold Member

7x6andchg: Well now here's a question I have, only marginally related to this thread:

The 1st amendment only guarantees that Congress will pass no law favoring a given religion. It does not guarantee us freedom FROM religion, even in matters that might marginally deal with the State.

While I agree that the 10 commandments don't belong in a court house, what are your thoughts on the following:

1. In God We Trust
2. one nation, under God

Here in Wisconsin there is a big case going on as we speak about a monument that contains the 10 commandments. It is in a privately owned section of a park. It was paid for with NO goverment money, and currently is fenced in...with an UGLY fence. My question is this: does the State of Wisconsin (or the City of La Crosse) have an obligation to remove said monument? It isn't on public land, the government didn't pay for it....

Gold Member

awellhungboi: Well, I don't know the case you're talking about, so I can't address it specifically, but if Justice Moore, or anybody else, wants to erect a monument on his or own her private property I'll be the first to defend his or her 1st amendment right to do so, whether the monument is to the 10 Commandments, the 120 Days of Sodom, Zeus, Beezlebub, or Aimee Semple McPherson on a milk-white steed Public art is always a thorny issue, though. No matter what it is, somebody's going to be offended by it.

Gold Member

7x6andchg: Blasphemy in light of our current state of affairs, Jonb? Or blasphemy because it is favoring a religion? Actually, that wouldn't be blasphlemy would it - that would be more like constitutionphlemy...going against our secular side, if you will?

Gold Member

SpeedoGuy: Just back from a vacation and pleased to see the responses to what I consider to be an interesting and controversial topic. Thanks all.

I think Longhornjok said it quite well. I agree 100%. The best course of action for the guy would be to step down from his position and thus be free to protest, agitate, persuade, cajole, lobby or do whatever else he thinks is appropriate to change laws he doesn't agree with.

Gold Member

[quote author=7by6etC link=board=99;num=1061784639;start=0#10 date=09/02/03 at 18:02:58]Blasphemy in light of our current state of affairs, Jonb? Or blasphemy because it is favoring a religion? Actually, that wouldn't be blasphlemy would it - that would be more like constitutionphlemy...going against our secular side, if you will?

7x6&C[/quote]
Putting God's name on money. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and all that.

Gold Member

I brought this topic up because it stuck in my craw when it flared up in the popular media. Obviously, lots of people have violated laws to draw attention or make a point but this is the first case I can think of where a senior jurist chose to do so.

Gold Member

Longhornjok: [quote author=SpeedoGuy link=board=99;num=1061784639;start=0#14 date=09/09/03 at 18:07:30]I'll be watching to see where it goes from here. SG[/quote]
I would bet that soon-to-no-longer-be-Justice Moore will run for either Governor or Senator and would have a good chance of being elected.